Google Disables All Ads on Antiwar.com (Updated)

– because we have a page showing the Abu Ghraib abuses.

Update: After channels of communication were opened as a result of this article on Gawker, Google contacted us and said they would be restoring our ads.

However, Friday morning I received another demand to remove content from our site. Google has decided this page must be removed.

We have no intention of letting Google dictate our editorial policies.

Original post:

On 3/18/15 we received a note from Google Adsense informing us that all ads for our site had been disabled. Why? Because of this page showing the horrific abuses committed by U.S. troops in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.

This page has been up for 11 years. During all that time Google Adsense has been running ads on our site – but as Washington gets ready to re-invade Iraq, and in bombing, killing, and abusing more civilians, they suddenly decide that their "anti-violence" policy, which prohibits "disturbing material," prohibits any depiction of violence committed by the U.S. government and paid for with your tax dollars. This page is the third-most-visited page in our history, getting over 2 million page views since it was posted.

To say this is an utter outrage would be an understatement: it is quite simply the kind of situation one might expect to encounter in an authoritarian country where state-owned or state-connected companies routinely censor material that displeases the government.

Is Google now an arm of the U.S. State Department?

This is a big hit on our funding. You can bet the boys in Washington don’t like us and would just love to shut us down.

Don’t let them get away with it! We need your help today, and you can do that in two ways:

  1. Make a donation to help us recover the lost revenue. We run this web site on a shoestring, and the money we fully expected to bring in from Google ads now puts a big hole our budget. We simply can’t afford to lose this income – but we’re not taking down the Abu Ghraib page. No way, no how! Please make your tax-deductible donation today.
  2. Contact Google ads and give them a piece of your mind. Tell them that you don’t appreciate their efforts on behalf of the Washington censors and demand that they reinstate us immediately.
    Google Inc.
    1600 Amphitheater Parkway
    Mountain View, CA 94043
    Telephone: 650-253-0000
    You can also interact with Google at their forum

Thank you to all our supporters.

You can confirm that Antiwar.com is being blocked by going to Adsenseblockchecker.

Here is the text of the email received from Google Adsense:

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:43:39 +0000
Subject: Google AdSense ad serving has been disabled to your site
From: adsense-noreply@google.com
To: adsense-noreply@google.com

Hello,
This message is to alert you that one of your websites is not currently in compliance with our AdSense program policies and as a result, ad serving has been disabled to your website.

Issue ID#: 33539611

Ad serving has been disabled to: antiwar.com

Example page where violation occurred: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=8560

Action required: Check all other remaining sites in your account for compliance.

Current account status: Active

Violation explanation

VIOLENCE/GORE: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with violent or disturbing content, including sites with gory text or images. More information about this policy can be found in our help center ( https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?utm_source=crs&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notificationhl=en&answer=105954 ).

VIOLENCE: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on pages with violent content. This includes sites with content related to breaking bones, getting hit by trains or cars, or people receiving serious injuries. More information about this policy can be found in our help center ( https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/1348688?utm_source=crs&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notificationhl=en&answer=105954 ).

Action required: Check account for compliance
While ad serving has been disabled to the above site, your AdSense account remains active. Please be aware that the URL above is just an example and that the same violations may exist on other pages of this website or other sites you own. Therefore, we suggest that you take the time to review the rest of your sites to ensure that theyâ ™re in compliance with our policies, and to monitor your sites accordingly to reduce the likelihood of future policy emails from us. Additionally, please note that our team reserves the right to disable accounts at any time if we continue to see violations occurring.

Appeals
If you wish to appeal this disabling then you can do so by using the Issue ID listed above to contact us via our Help Center: https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/113061?utm_source=crs&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notificationhl=en&answer=113061.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

The Google AdSense Team

239 thoughts on “Google Disables All Ads on Antiwar.com (Updated)”

    1. Jens, I am rethinking my whole use of Google. The NSA relationship and now this.

      Peace,
      Angela

      1. Use startpage.com/ixquick Angela. It's an encrypted proxy for Google search without any filter bubble, so you always get the raw data instead of curated data based on your online usage pattern. It's also encrypted, so no NSA snooping.

        1. Thank you. Will look at that right now.

          Thank all of you for your comments. Will be answering more shortly.

          1. I use duckduckgo. They also do not collect any data. It's not quite on par with Google, but it's still fairly good. Also, Google doesn't make any money from duckduckgo because they have their own internal search engine. Parts of it are open source, though I'm not sure which parts are.

          2. Duckduckgo doesn't track you, but their searches are not encrypted, thus are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attack.

          3. Duckduckgo only supports encryption. They don't even offer an unencrypted option. They use SSL encryption over https1.1. I'm not sure if they are http/2 ready yet. Https encrypts both the data and application layer header. It's possible that they do not encrypt header information at the other layers, but that doesn't really matter. Unless you're a fellow network engineer or otherwise have really advanced knowledge on how to use non-default protocols that are often blacklisted or not supported by consumer grade routers, the headers of your dns queries will give away all the information (of value to the state…malicious attackers may be another matter) that can by obtained by encrypting the other layers of the network stack. Good luck using the internet using only ip addresses instead of domain names. Anyway, duckduckgo also offers a tor option, though I know little about it.

          4. Yes, I was thinking about the headers. Startpage sends search queries though an encrypted meta package so no information is in the actual url. DDG doesn't do that to my knowledge.

          5. Well, if you really are that determined to encrypt EVERYTHING, you will need to encrypt DNS. I recommend using OpenDNS with DNSCrypt and DNSSEC and disabling your current DNS, but disabling it should be one of the last steps because unless you have a replacement DNS ready, it will break the net for you. If you're really that paranoid, you should buy fiber-to-the-home service from your ISP and a fiber optic NIC because UTP cables can be scanned by readers from a relative distance. Also, use wired internet in your home instead of wireless. Keep wireless disabled. Someone outside your home can break into your system over time. For instance, anyone with Wireshark can break WEP encryption in under 24 hours if the Internet is actively being used. That includes no blue tooth because attackers can detect every key you type from a wireless keyboard from outside your home. Also, there is no way around man in the middle attacks on individual routers that are hardware compromised or devices in between that can successfully spoof the ID of the router. Even Tor is vulnerable to this because the NSA (and probably other intelligence agencies) makes extra sure that it is.

          6. You sir, seem to know what you are talking about. Would be interested in picking your brain about this more sometime. Ping me on twitter? @juansgalt

        2. StartPage is the home page on my browser! I have used it ever since learning about it.

          The same company also runs the Ixquick search engine, which uses the Yahoo! algorithm. It is just as secure as StartPage.

  1. May I suggest that .. you start selling advertising to your page yourself and just cut out the Google middle man .. you might get more .. revenue that way.. sometimes a bad thing can be turned into something really good. Be the FIRST.. and others may follow.. who needs anyone telling you what is right or wrong.. advertise for advertising..

    1. Agreed, getting rid of Google's stranglehold on the ad market is a very good thing. Google is a major threat to humanity.

      On the other hand it is hard to take fault for them on this particular issue. Google enters into contracts with paying advertisers and promises them their ads won't appear on gory / violent pages. In this case Google is acting to honor their contracts with their paying clients. I don't see how they can be faulted for that. That they waited 9 years is no doubt due to the fact that they just found out about it, probably because somebody complained. If there is a more nefarious reason I'd like to hear it but even with perennially evil companies like Google I do not jump to negative judgments in areas where they are not know to be evil.

    2. Google is not an arm of the State Department. It is an arm of Israel through fanatical American supporters of Israel, even at the expense of their own country. An American whose first loyal is not to his own country is not an American.

      1. Willliam…..you, sir, are obviously an American. "Dual citizenship"……..equals TRAITORS to America & Americans.
        Thank you. Now on to D.C. and Wall Street, dens of foreign invaders and their political prostitutes bought with countnerfeited (by the tribally owned Federal Reserve) dollars.

  2. Strange. When I go to Google and put in "abu ghraib abuse photos" the Antiwar dot com 2-17-2006 link to photos is at the top of the list. Thanks, Google.

    1. They're not saying they're scrubbing it from all search results, just that they won't serve ads to be displayed on the site itself. Which is completely unacceptable too. But not the same thing.

  3. Teri, already have some ad folks on it. Yes, we are going to turn this into something positive. If nothing else, get folks talking about torture.

    Peace,
    Angela

    1. I don't mean to be a spoiler, but I've experianced a similar case some many years back when all this war stuff started when our local anti-war group in town put up a "independant and free" news letter. We thought to fund it with ads, but quickly found out most businesses were hesitant to advertise with us, 'cause they did not want to get political. (Afterall they are in business, and have to stay in business, and can't risk losing customers, and I respect that.) Anyway, we found out we had to socialize the whole thing through like minded groups, and acquire funding through them; not an easy thing.
      Anyway, I don't want to discourage you from trying. Just want to alert you to the pitfalls. Do wish you success.

  4. Frankly I think the google bureaucratic machinery is just processing complaints, nothing personal. At most one can ask who complained.

    The practice does show of course the capability of google to censor sites, which is a very troublesome evolution. But taken case by case it may well be that the decision can be reverted while keeping the abu graib pictures.

  5. I think that you should run those pics on page one or a special edition of AW.C along with two thoughts:
    1. This is what the US govt is about to do again as it reinvades Iraq (and retains troops in Afghanistan).
    2. Request donations, especially in the form of sustainers.
    jw
    P.s. I bet there are those who own Google stock who read AW.C. They should give company HQ a call and a piece of their minds.

    1. Bill, the webmaster is going to put it up shortly. Will have much more info up by this evening.

      Peace,
      Angela

    1. It's almost impossible to boycott the empire enough. We gave Amazon a second chance but that can be reopened as well. I've already stopped giving interviews on google hangout.

  6. Go to BING, which has not totally capitulated to NSA yet; well, how would we know? (gotta change my email address too.)

  7. This totally upsets me, I'm hoping it's just a routine automated thing that slipped through and upon review they will determine the content is newsworthy and not merely there for its "gore value". I am calling them now at the number you posted, and sharing the link too. Thanks for the call to action!!

    1. Apparently the shills replying to you there don't understand that there wouldn't be any news that's not corporate pablum reported if newspapers had to conform news content to advertisers' wishes. Like the secret laws we now live under, Google's algorithms of exclusion are similarly secret. Not surprising that reporting that does not reflect well on government, to say the least, with such close ties as Google's boss has with senior State Department officials, would be subject to being boycotted by Google. The canard that Google is just being "family friendly" is a canard, as there are many people who have an entirely different definition. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, western power elites while proclaiming free speech for themselves, are in fact anxious to throttle expression of what they don't agree with by strangling the ability to be funded. Unfortunately free speech isn't free and truth telling can be eliminated simply by making it unaffordable, and allowing commerce only to approved viewpoints.

    1. Oracle started as a project for the CIA. I worked at Oracle for about ten years and found out in the first year there.

  8. I am also upset to hear this, but I would like to understand a little better before appealing/complaining to Google: is there a sense that this rule is not applied fairly across web sites using Google AdSense? I'd be much more disturbed if they were discriminating against antiwar sites. If they were discriminating AND we had evidence (e.g., sites displaying AdSense ads despite violent content), there would be more ammunition for our complaints; is it possible to use the Google search engine itself to find sites that have both violent images AND AdSense ads?

  9. "is it possible to use the Google search engine itself to find sites that have both violent images"

    yes that would be pretty easy to do. The fact is this site was able to do it for a long time and so do others.

  10. I would have checked out that link, but it was blocked at the coffee shop I'm at, which is owned by Goldman Sachs.

  11. Google is not targeting Antiwar.com – please don't make this a conspiracy as it will put into question the legitimate reporting you do.

    I've had a site banned from Adsense for the exact same reason, after being on the service for 10 years with no problems. That site had nothing to do with politics.

    If you remove Google ads from that particular page, they should reinstate you back into the program. The simple fact is that they don't want their ads showing up next to photos depicting violence. They are not trying to censor the entire site. And yes, it may seem fishy for this to happen all of a sudden, but Google has been doing this to their "long-term partners" for years.

    1. GGman,

      No one thinks this is a conspiracy. Just a poor and frankly sloppy business practice. That page has high traffic as it is one of the few that actually showed those pictures uncensored. Further, it rarely if ever carried ads as far as I can remember since that would distract from the photos. All this did was open the door to vendors and even "big business" who support open discussions as well as antiwar positions.

      Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, et al. can live in a 1% fantasy where they rule the world (whether through their own doing or capitulation to the almighty state) but the world changes quickly and rulers are overthrown, new technology is discovered and new wealth created. The future belongs to far more complex minds like Chelsea Manning and the late Aaron Swartz.

      This is the anniversary of the Iraq war. No time like now for this to have happened. An honest discussion of torture is never out of date.

      Peace,
      Angela

    2. GGman,

      Also, while other sites have received this letter, they were given 72 hours to comply with the google terms of service. Antiwar.com was not given that choice; that is an issue. Google clearly has chosen in this case not to honor its standard practice. That does need to be discussed. If Google doesn't wish to be an honest broker, people need to be aware of that practice so they can chose not to do business with it.

      There are other ad services out there. Google isn't magic. Moses didn't come down from the mountain touting this search engine. People are free to go elsewhere and elsewhere is apparently were many are choosing to go.

      Peace,
      Angela

    3. Google's chieftain hates Assange, WikiLeaks, Snowden, Greenwald, Raimondo, Swartz and Antiwar.com.

      This is what monopoly power in the service of power elites does. There is a merger of corporate and secret police spying on and population management.

      It's not some arcane conspiracy theory. It's what the greedy and power-seeking always do – they do not like to be challenged and can't help themselves from abusing their power, once they have too much.

      Dumping on the truth telling of Antiwar.com in the guise of "community standards" and pretending it's just an automated, gigantic uncorrectable machine directed drone hit of "collateral damage" is just transparent implausible deniability, if not corrected.

  12. So much for 'Net Neutrality' giving everyone an equal opportunity to put their thoughts and products out there, huh? LOL

    Funny, though, that the 'violent images' from Abu Ghraib were debunked by the government as 'stress positions' and 'sensory deprivation' and any number of things than violent mistreatment of prisoners. To hear the wags talk about it, it's just business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.

    1. You may wish to look into alternatives. There's Bidvertiser, Anonymous Ads, Project Wonderful, all kinds of stuff. I can sympathize; you're not the first website to get screwed over by Google and you won't be the last, but one of these days Google is going to wake up and find out that it has competition when everybody who has a website switches over to one of the alternatives.

      1. John G: Google is an arm of the Information and Control Sectors of the Criminal Government, (once Federal Government), and in that Criminal Government they will be happy to work with any and every agency to further what ever ends, be it the State Department or whomever. Google is not only the NSA, they are the FBI, CIA, DoD, Secret Service; you name 'em, they're right in there!

  13. Boycott Google. I use the Firefox browser with the "Facebook Disconnect, "Google Disconnect", and "Twitter Disconnect" add-ons to stop these fascist entities from tracking the webpages I go to.

    Out of all the thousands of internet companies started in the last 20 years, many offering very similar services, how is it that these three have inserted themselves so firmly into the culture? How did they convince all the media companies, all over the world, to give them free endless promotion? Pretty much every radio and TV program exhorts us to "Visit us on Facebook and Twitter". How did this happen?

    1. "Boycott Google. I use the Firefox browser with the "Facebook Disconnect, "Google Disconnect", and "Twitter Disconnect" add-ons to stop these fascist entities from tracking the webpages I go to."

      Done, done and done. THX!

    2. Thanks for the add-on info; I will look into them. I barely use FB and do not use Twitter at all.

      Not only do most Web sites hawk FB & Twitter, many MSM news outlets only allow commenting on their articles via FB. Just a few minutes ago I tried to track a UPS package headed this way; to do so I either had to create an account or sign on thru FB. That was not the case just a few months ago.

    3. Thanks for the reference to 'disconnect' addons to Firefox.

      What about using the Yandex browser?

  14. I'm a little slow. I did not see a snail mail address. Please put one in. I'll usually chip in when god's little bastards start telling me what to do and when. Took forever to track down the low rankng enlisted woman who followed Gerorge the genius's progragm and orders straight into prison. I finally got a mail postmaster in the middle of nowhere who would accept a "general delivery" to her. The check cleared, not enough but I'm living off of a VA pension from vietnam.

    I never located the address of the hero of MY Lai, Hugh Thompson until after he was dead.

    1. Atchision,

      Google snail mail? Or ours?

      Ours is 1017 El Camino Real Ste 306. Redwood City, CA 94063. The FBI certainly knows where to find us.

      Peace,
      Angela

  15. As much as I believe in free speech, I think the pictures should be withdrawn. You have made your point and you can explain the situation. Everyone knows the depravity of Abu Ghareb by now. I will send you a donation but please remove the pictures. they are too gross and serve no purpose. How about reporting on "lustration" in Ukraine? And explaining the depravity of Ukrainian nationalists in Donbass?

    1. Dear Dan,

      We much appreciate and respect your support for Antiwar.com but we cannot accept any gift under those terms. The pictures will remain on the site as long as their is a site.

      As for explaining the depravity of Ukrainian nationalists, we can report on it but explaining it is matter for theologians and philosophers.

      Peace,
      Angela

    2. Dan, I respectfully disagree. Not "everybody" knows the depravity of Abu Ghareb and even those who were aware of it once, too easily forget. Others seem to have the vague notion that this kind of horror must be warranted or surely, our guys and gals in uniform wouldn't do it. I believe these pictures should be shown every time some moron advocates thanking a soldier or cites "Toys for Tots" of evidence of how big-hearted members of the military are.

  16. If Google is offended by pictures of Abu Ghraib, what would they do with scenes from Me Lai? Google was one of the first "news" organizations to cave-in to the NSA to provide anything they wanted. Poor little scared rabbits!

  17. Google is a very willing part of the authoritarian regime that rules over us serfs in the US. That is why I am moving to non-US software whenever possible. I first replaced my US software company antivirus with a non-US version.

  18. Good luck with the google nazis. Just today I have been put on a two week suspension. For posting comments on youtube channels they don’t agree with. I’m polite, never swear, I am a Christian and anti-war. Just last week they announced that THEY will determine what the TRUTH is when it comes to using their search engine. This internet cencorship has got to stop.

  19. I am moving away for all US, UK, and EU software, wherever possible. First to go was US company antivirus; moved to Kaspersky that blocks NSA virus and the back door firmware on disk drives. Kaspersky protects Russian domains so I trust them to protect against evil NSA virus.

  20. The Abu Ghraib photos were fakes, as both the US army and the Red Cross determined. I'm only surprised that it took Google so long to find out.

  21. All of mainstream media s owned by the corporate rich, which makes Empire USA far worse then a dictatorship.

  22. Julian Assange warned about this. Google is an arm of the empire. They don’t want to make it obvious yet but that day is coming.

  23. Angela, Did you read the newsweek article Assange interview? It was the first decent thing published by newsweek in decades

Comments are closed.